SUPREME COURT OF THE CANAL ZONE.

It is therefore considered by the court that for the reasons given the writ of certiorari should be quashed and the petition dismissed at the costs of plaintiff in error.
JUSTICE OWEN concurred.
Writ denied.
THE SOUTHERN SAW MILL COMPANY versus EHRMAN AND COMPANY.
No. 65. Argued April 20, 1910. Decided May 12, 1910.
JURISDICTION. SERVICE.
When service of summons is had up:n defendants who are found within any circuit in which the action has been filed, the court obtains thereby jurisdiction of the cause.
If the defendants were not the victim- of intrigue or coercion, when service was obtained upon them in the Canal Zone, they, having voluntarily brought themselves within the jurisdiction of the court, have no greater rights than
those whose legal domicile is within the Canal Zone.
Appeal by plaintiff from the Circuit Court of the First Judicial Circuit, Canal Zone; Hon. H. A. Gudger, Judge.
The facts appear in the opinion.
Hinckley and Ganson for appellant. G. M. Shontz for appellee.
WESLEY M. OWEN, J. The appellant, a corporation of the State of Louisiana, filed its complaint in the First Judicial Circuit of the Canal Zone seeking to recover from Ramona Ehrman, Adela Ehrman de Ehrman, John Ehrman, Felix Ehrman, comprising a copartnership, doing business under the firm name of Ehrman & Company, (bankers), of the city of Panama, Republic of Panama. Summons of court issued and was returned showing personal service, within the circuit, on John Ehrman and Adela Ehrman de Ehrman.
Incident to passing on the questions presented, we deem it unnecessary to refer to the allegations of the pleadings, except to mention that the action was iastituted, s-.eking to recover a claim of $2,141.29 United States currency, which it is alleged was collected by the appellees for the credit of the appellant.

46